Ritz Theater v. Income Tax Officer

order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

MANMOHAN, J. AUGUST 25, 2010 dk/nm/vk

it* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 10th August, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 25th August, 2010 + ITA 978/2010 RITZ THEATRE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kannan Kapur, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. AND ITA 980/2010 RITZ THEATRE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kannan Kapur, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. AND ITA 981/2010 RITZ THEATRE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kannan Kapur, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. AND ITA 982/2010 RITZ THEATRE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kannan Kapur, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. AND ITA 984/2010 RITZ THEATRE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kannan Kapur, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The controversy involved in this batch of appeals being similar, it was heard analogously and is disposed of by a common order. Be it noted, the appeals that are directed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench F, New Delhi on 19.6.2009 (for short "the tribunal") which disposed of ITA Nos.1779 to 1783/Del/2009 pertaining to the Assessment Years 1990-91 to 1992-93 and 1995-96 & 1996-97, have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in not acknowledging the jurisdictional infirmity in respect of the returns having never been regularised on account of non service of (jurisdictional) notice under Section 148 of the Act has caused the impugned order to be ridden with perversity and liable to be set aside by this Court? (ii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the order of the tribunal having been passed in contravention to the settled judicial principles and binding judicial authorities of the Supreme Court as well as those of various High Court is perverse? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the re-assessment proceedings were barred by time as the same were issued beyond the statutory period of 6 years?" 2. The brief facts which are imperative to be exposited for adjudication of these appeals are that the assessee had filed returns of income for the assessment years in question on 2.12.1999 and the said returns were processed under Section 143(1) on 5.3.2002. The assessing officer noted that the assessee company had made disclosure of income under the VDIS, 1997. The assessee failed to deposit the taxes in accordance with the VDIS and, therefore, the declaration was held to be void in terms of Section 67(2) of the Scheme. Notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued on 24.12.1999. The assessing officer had issued notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) along with the questionnaire. In response to the said notices, the Managing Director of the company appeared before the assessing officer from time to time and filed details as called for. The assessing officer found that the assessee had not made any payment of tax under self-assessment or under the provisions of VDIS, 1997. In this backdrop, he completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order of assessment, the assessee challenged the same in appeals and a number of grounds were urged. One of the grounds that was highlighted was that the notice under Section 148 dated 24.12.1999 was not served on the assessee and, therefore, the order of reassessment framed under Section 147 on 26.3.2002 was bad in law. 4. The CIT(A), while dealing with the said aspect, came to h